From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54C12C3DA6E for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 13:02:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B6DC06B0080; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 08:02:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id AF6D26B0081; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 08:02:38 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 94A056B0082; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 08:02:38 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C73D6B0080 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 08:02:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49FCF140599 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 13:02:38 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 81587210796.05.8AA47FA Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by imf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9967C001A for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 13:02:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass (imf10.hostedemail.com: domain of ryan.roberts@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ryan.roberts@arm.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1703077354; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=P4cpQfjJjrtaoOzi9PgZYk+jeUh1PHXnBfD8NFtq9mU=; b=HMeo8s/gAMYO7bX8Zsvm4AyCYHe/fFwX06hjj+MffSBamz1S+/04pcLeNfpwDv7LmcYN+j 6M49geABEpRZWWJAtoaSdoQ1G1fhmUtA2otuWwjZuFJi0ttbyZrWDMzv9QOrq5B4qcMTCs HgeVQoIJfWDMUuBTuv3TfWgEdIWNotw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass (imf10.hostedemail.com: domain of ryan.roberts@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ryan.roberts@arm.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1703077354; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=afdFtxNzq7EPAqciD38AHG61blM2EZKVgFVm6Xkp3Hp05kWwmqnJNPAhdS1GvnAim/s6F4 1aIOtjmWCESqscbyeRPYegaxn/q+/DlsQr46Vg95BnAsvlSK6Shc4WS4tm4n393bv+S6Sb 3M/9TXTnrUPEENyE8i4A8Wh36HLFJDU= Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A51CE1FB; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 05:03:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.57.75.247] (unknown [10.57.75.247]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B1413F738; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 05:02:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 13:02:27 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/16] mm: Batch-copy PTE ranges during fork() Content-Language: en-GB To: David Hildenbrand , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Ard Biesheuvel , Marc Zyngier , Oliver Upton , James Morse , Suzuki K Poulose , Zenghui Yu , Andrey Ryabinin , Alexander Potapenko , Andrey Konovalov , Dmitry Vyukov , Vincenzo Frascino , Andrew Morton , Anshuman Khandual , Matthew Wilcox , Yu Zhao , Mark Rutland , Kefeng Wang , John Hubbard , Zi Yan , Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>, Alistair Popple , Yang Shi Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20231218105100.172635-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com> <20231218105100.172635-3-ryan.roberts@arm.com> <0bef5423-6eea-446b-8854-980e9c23a948@redhat.com> <7c0236ad-01f3-437f-8b04-125d69e90dc0@redhat.com> <9a58b1a2-2c13-4fa0-8ffa-2b3d9655f1b6@arm.com> <28968568-f920-47ac-b6fd-87528ffd8f77@redhat.com> <10b0b562-c1c0-4a66-9aeb-a6bff5c218f6@arm.com> <8f8023cb-3c31-4ead-a9e6-03a10e9490c6@redhat.com> <699cb1db-51eb-460e-9ceb-1ce08ca03050@redhat.com> <2a8c5b6c-f5ae-43b2-99aa-6d10e79b76e1@redhat.com> <3194b8a5-3f72-4d9e-a267-fbdad32ad864@redhat.com> <54d645de-d031-4efc-a1ba-042f709cd549@redhat.com> From: Ryan Roberts In-Reply-To: <54d645de-d031-4efc-a1ba-042f709cd549@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam12 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: D9967C001A X-Stat-Signature: 1u6e4dh6h78rm3mmofwqcf1xf8fex4m1 X-HE-Tag: 1703077353-977337 X-HE-Meta: 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 tG4LB+Rc JB14czO+xVomDhQCUVDgr8SGQe2oHrN5QP4oZiOVhy/6PW3qMq0rxrllX1sRQ2X92ayyGah1Lc6EF9jlyg0leb0lxbm5dv11fxb7RXJ2AjbiCaPcQkQM2AZaZi+AJ/DYblnEUfXZE8aBURbcRreRLn9MIJGwmnBE/dxBJxOHKUNzY5noFUiy1g7LcA2iZmKSai9tMe8vQ9ba2Er5px/Lfi6HoWYOMMHOZpM1uSQqJ27NGgFea7MO5fUb+pvgrgOd6Rf0AdmvOEVt3U4bddHpFrGIdSvFaYyKDNvm3/ngzehXv2Co= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 20/12/2023 12:54, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 20.12.23 13:04, Ryan Roberts wrote: >> On 20/12/2023 11:58, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> On 20.12.23 12:51, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>>> On 20/12/2023 11:36, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>> On 20.12.23 12:28, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>>>>> On 20/12/2023 10:56, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>>> On 20.12.23 11:41, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>> On 20/12/2023 10:16, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 20.12.23 11:11, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 20/12/2023 09:54, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 20.12.23 10:51, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/12/2023 09:17, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.12.23 18:42, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/12/2023 17:22, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.12.23 09:30, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/12/2023 17:47, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18.12.23 11:50, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Convert copy_pte_range() to copy a batch of ptes in one go. A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch is determined by the architecture with the new helper, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pte_batch_remaining(), and maps a physically contiguous block of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all belonging to the same folio. A pte batch is then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write-protected in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one go in the parent using the new helper, ptep_set_wrprotects() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set in one go in the child using the new helper, set_ptes_full(). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The primary motivation for this change is to reduce the number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of tlb >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance operations that the arm64 backend has to perform >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fork, as it is about to add transparent support for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "contiguous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in its ptes. By write-protecting the parent using the new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ptep_set_wrprotects() (note the 's' at the end) function, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can avoid having to unfold contig ranges of PTEs, which is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expensive, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when all ptes in the range are being write-protected. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using set_ptes_full() rather than set_pte_at() to set up ptes in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child, the backend does not need to fold a contiguous range once >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are all populated - they can be initially populated as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contiguous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range in the first place. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This code is very performance sensitive, and a significant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort has been put into not regressing performance for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order-0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folio case. By default, pte_batch_remaining() is compile >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant 1, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which enables the compiler to simplify the extra loops that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for batching and produce code that is equivalent (and equally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performant) as the previous implementation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This change addresses the core-mm refactoring only and a separate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will implement pte_batch_remaining(), ptep_set_wrprotects() and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set_ptes_full() in the arm64 backend to realize the performance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvement as part of the work to enable contpte mappings. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To ensure the arm64 is performant once implemented, this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> careful to only call ptep_get() once per pte batch. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following microbenchmark results demonstate that there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant performance change after this patch. Fork is called >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tight loop in a process with 1G of populated memory and the time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function to execute is measured. 100 iterations per run, 8 runs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performed on both Apple M2 (VM) and Ampere Altra (bare metal). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performed for case where 1G memory is comprised of order-0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folios and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case where comprised of pte-mapped order-9 folios. Negative is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive is slower, compared to baseline upon which the series is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Apple M2 VM   | order-0 (pte-map) | order-9 (pte-map) | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | fork          |-------------------|-------------------| >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | microbench    |    mean |   stdev |    mean |   stdev | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |---------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | baseline      |    0.0% |    1.1% |    0.0% |    1.2% | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | after-change  |   -1.0% |    2.0% |   -0.1% |    1.1% | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Ampere Altra  | order-0 (pte-map) | order-9 (pte-map) | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | fork          |-------------------|-------------------| >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | microbench    |    mean |   stdev |    mean |   stdev | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |---------------|---------|---------|---------|---------| >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | baseline      |    0.0% |    1.0% |    0.0% |    0.1% | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | after-change  |   -0.1% |    1.2% |   -0.1% |    0.1% | >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tested-by: John Hubbard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Alistair Popple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           include/linux/pgtable.h | 80 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           mm/memory.c             | 92 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           2 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index af7639c3b0a3..db93fb81465a 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -205,6 +205,27 @@ static inline int pmd_young(pmd_t pmd) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           #define arch_flush_lazy_mmu_mode()    do {} while (0) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           #endif >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           +#ifndef pte_batch_remaining >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * pte_batch_remaining - Number of pages from addr to next batch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boundary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @pte: Page table entry for the first page. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @addr: Address of the first page. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @end: Batch ceiling (e.g. end of vma). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * Some architectures (arm64) can efficiently modify a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contiguous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ptes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * In such cases, this function returns the remaining number of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * of the current batch, as defined by addr. This can be useful >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> iterating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * over ptes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * May be overridden by the architecture, else batch size is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always 1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline unsigned int pte_batch_remaining(pte_t pte, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsigned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addr, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +                        unsigned long end) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +{ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +    return 1; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +#endif >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a shame we now lose the optimization for all other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> archtiectures. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there no way to have some basic batching mechanism that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifics? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried a bunch of things but ultimately the way I've done it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reduce the order-0 fork regression to 0. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My original v3 posting was costing 5% extra and even my first >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arch-specific version that didn't resolve to a compile-time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost an extra 3%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought that something very basic would have worked like: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Check if PTE is the same when setting the PFN to 0. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Check that PFN is consecutive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Check that all PFNs belong to the same folio >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't tried this exact approach, but I'd be surprised if I can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regression under 4% with this. Further along the series I spent a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having to fiddle with the arm64 implementation; every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conditional and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory read (even when in cache) was a problem. There is just so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inner loop that every instruction matters. (At least on Ampere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Altra >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M2). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course if you're willing to pay that 4-5% for order-0 then the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order-9 is around 10% in my measurements. Personally though, I'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safe and ensure the common order-0 case doesn't regress, as you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just hacked something up, on top of my beloved rmap >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cleanup/batching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> series. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented very generic and simple batching for large folios >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (all PTE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except the PFN have to match). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some very quick testing (don't trust each last % ) on Intel(R) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xeon(R) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Silver >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4210R CPU. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order-0: 0.014210 -> 0.013969 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -> Around 1.7 % faster >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order-9: 0.014373 -> 0.009149 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -> Around 36.3 % faster >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well I guess that shows me :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll do a review and run the tests on my HW to see if it concurs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I pushed a simple compile fixup (we need pte_next_pfn()). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I've just been trying to compile and noticed this. Will take a look at >>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>> update. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But upon review, I've noticed the part that I think makes this >>>>>>>>>>>> difficult >>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> arm64 with the contpte optimization; You are calling ptep_get() for >>>>>>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>>>>>> pte in >>>>>>>>>>>> the batch. While this is functionally correct, once arm64 has the >>>>>>>>>>>> contpte >>>>>>>>>>>> changes, its ptep_get() has to read every pte in the contpte block in >>>>>>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>>>>>> gather the access and dirty bits. So if your batching function ends up >>>>>>>>>>>> wealking >>>>>>>>>>>> a 16 entry contpte block, that will cause 16 x 16 reads, which kills >>>>>>>>>>>> performance. That's why I added the arch-specific pte_batch_remaining() >>>>>>>>>>>> function; this allows the core-mm to skip to the end of the contpte >>>>>>>>>>>> block and >>>>>>>>>>>> avoid ptep_get() for the 15 tail ptes. So we end up with 16 >>>>>>>>>>>> READ_ONCE()s >>>>>>>>>>>> instead >>>>>>>>>>>> of 256. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I considered making a ptep_get_noyoungdirty() variant, which would >>>>>>>>>>>> avoid >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> bit >>>>>>>>>>>> gathering. But we have a similar problem in zap_pte_range() and that >>>>>>>>>>>> function >>>>>>>>>>>> needs the dirty bit to update the folio. So it doesn't work there. (see >>>>>>>>>>>> patch 3 >>>>>>>>>>>> in my series). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are going to say that we should combine both approaches, so >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> your batching loop can skip forward an arch-provided number of ptes? >>>>>>>>>>>> That >>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>> certainly work, but feels like an orthogonal change to what I'm >>>>>>>>>>>> trying to >>>>>>>>>>>> achieve :). Anyway, I'll spend some time playing with it today. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You can overwrite the function or add special-casing internally, yes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Right now, your patch is called "mm: Batch-copy PTE ranges during >>>>>>>>>>> fork()" >>>>>>>>>>> and it >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't do any of that besides preparing for some arm64 work. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well it allows an arch to opt-in to batching. But I see your point. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How do you want to handle your patches? Do you want to clean them up and >>>>>>>>>> I'll >>>>>>>>>> base my stuff on top? Or do you want me to take them and sort it all out? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Whatever you prefer, it was mostly a quick prototype to see if we can >>>>>>>>> achieve >>>>>>>>> decent performance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm about to run it on Altra and M2. But I assume it will show similar >>>>>>>> results. >>>>>> >>>>>> OK results in, not looking great, which aligns with my previous experience. >>>>>> That >>>>>> said, I'm seeing some "BUG: Bad page state in process gmain  pfn:12a094" so >>>>>> perhaps these results are not valid... >>>>> >>>>> I didn't see that so far on x86, maybe related to the PFN fixup? >>>> >>>> All I've done is define PFN_PTE_SHIFT for arm64 on top of your latest patch: >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> index b19a8aee684c..9eb0fd693df9 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> @@ -359,6 +359,8 @@ static inline void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, >>>>    } >>>>    #define set_ptes set_ptes >>>>    +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT          PAGE_SHIFT >>>> + >>>>    /* >>>>     * Huge pte definitions. >>>>     */ >>>> >>>> >>>> As an aside, I think there is a bug in arm64's set_ptes() for PA > 48-bit >>>> case. But that won't affect this. >>>> >>>> >>>> With VM_DEBUG on, this is the first warning I see during boot: >>>> >>>> >>>> [    0.278110] page:00000000c7ced4e8 refcount:12 mapcount:0 >>>> mapping:00000000b2f9739b index:0x1a8 pfn:0x1bff30 >>>> [    0.278742] head:00000000c7ced4e8 order:2 entire_mapcount:0 >>>> nr_pages_mapped:2 pincount:0 >>> >>> ^ Ah, you are running with mTHP. Let me play with that. >> >> Err... Its in mm-unstable, but I'm not enabling any sizes. It should only be set >> up for PMD-sized THP. >> >> I am using XFS though, so I imagine its a file folio. >> >> I've rebased your rmap cleanup and fork batching to the version of mm-unstable >> that I was doing all my other testing with so I could compare numbers. But its >> not very old (perhaps a week). All the patches applied without any conflict. > > I think it was something stupid: I would get "17" from folio_pte_batch() for an > order-4 folio, but only sometimes. The rmap sanity checks were definitely worth > it :) > > I guess we hit the case "next mapped folio is actually the next physical folio" > and the detection for that was off by one. > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c > index 187d1b9b70e2..2af34add7ed7 100644 > --- a/mm/memory.c > +++ b/mm/memory.c > @@ -975,7 +975,7 @@ static inline int folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, > unsigned long addr, >                  * corner cases the next PFN might fall into a different >                  * folio. >                  */ > -               if (pte_pfn(pte) == folio_end_pfn - 1) > +               if (pte_pfn(pte) == folio_end_pfn) >                         break; > haha, of course! I've been staring at this for an hour and didn't notice. I no longer see any warnings during boot with debug enabled. Will rerun perf measurements. > Briefly tested, have to do more testing. > > I only tested with order-9, which means max_nr would cap at 512. Shouldn't > affect the performance measurements, will redo them. >